Diocese of Charlotte in opposition to Vatican II and Canon Law

 As noted here:

"The Diocese of Charlotte – headed by Bishop Michael Martin, who notoriously banned the Latin Mass in his diocese – is siding with a school that expelled children after their parents complained about the school’s adoption of woke ideology, including graphic, sexually explicit LGBTQ+ books.

The lawsuit by parents of the expelled children, Doug and Nicole Turpin, Turpin v. Charlotte Latin School, now before the North Carolina Supreme Court, “asks whether a private school can invite open dialogue and then expel students in retaliation for their parents’ protected speech.”

____________________________________________

My commentary

This decision represents an act of violence against the child's right to live his or her own sexuality in conformity with Christian principles: "Since each child or young person must be able to live his or her own sexuality in conformity with Christian principles, and hence be able to exercise the virtue of chastity, no educator — not even parents — can interfere with this right to chastity (cf. Matthew 18: 4-7)." ( Pontifical Council for the Family,  The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, No. 118).

The decision of the Diocese of Charlotte also represents an attack on parental rights. Vatican II teaches us that, in raising children, the responsibility of parents is primary: "Since parents have given life to their children, they have a very grave duty to educate them, and so are to be recognized as their primary and principal educators" (GE, No. 3). 

And Pope John Paul II, explaining the conciliar teaching more fully in Familiaris consortio No. 36, says that: "The right and duty of parents to give education is essential, since it is connected with the transmission of human life; it is original and primary with regard to the educational role of others, on account of the uniqueness of the loving relationship between parents and children; and it is irreplaceable and inalienable, and therefore incapable of being entirely delegated to others or usurped by others."

Canon Law is also very clear on this matter. Canon 793, 1., states that: "Parents as well as those who take their place are obliged and enjoy the right to educate their offspring; Catholic parents also have the duty and the right to select those means and institutions through which they can provide more suitably for the Catholic education of the children according to local circumstances" and Canon 1136 says that: "Parents have the most serious duty and the primary right to do all in their power to see to the physical, social, cultural, moral and religious upbringing of their children."

This inalienable right of parents has been recognized by the United States Supreme Court. In 1922, the State of Oregon attempted to enact legislation that would have forced all children to attend the public schools within that state. But the Supreme Court overturned that decision and established that "The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."

The question before us: Will the Vatican intervene to ensure that Catholic teaching is upheld,  the rights of parents as primary educators of their children be respected and that Canon Law is adhered to?

Cardinal Carlo Martini has chosen to dissent from the Church's teaching and to engage in lying

In my last post, I noted how Cardinal Carlo Martini says [in his new book], "I disagree with the position of those in the Church, that take issue with civil unions..It is not bad, instead of casual sex between men, that two people have a certain stability..."  Besides demonstrating his personal loss of faith, the retired Cardinal provides us with further evidence that the homosexual agenda has made significant inroads within the Church.  But that hardly comes as news.  Back in 1995, reporter Edwin Thomas of Micromega magazine carried out an unusual survey.  Every evening for several weeks, Mr. Thomas would go for a walk in the area surrounding Saint Peter's Basilica.  Mr. Thomas reported that he was approached by 64 churchmen, "of all kinds, from seminarians to the secretary of a nunciature."

Now the Church has spoken loudly and clearly many times over, condemning in her official and authoritative teaching, homosexual acts.  So for Cardinal Martini to suggest that "it is not bad" for two men [or women] to engage in sexual relations is nothing short of demonic.  And that this retired renegade, who by his own words reveals himself to have been infected by the poison from Hell, to suggest that homosexual relationships can be "stable," is simply incredible.

Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons of the Catholic Medical Association, in an interview with zenit which may be found here,  was asked, "Is the opinion of the APA on same-sex unions and adoption consistent with the research on the medical and psychiatric difficulties in those with same-sex attractions and on the developmental needs of children"?  To which Dr. Fitzgibbons responded:  "No. The APA has chosen to ignore the significant medical research which has documented serious psychiatric and medical illnesses associated with those same-sex attractions and behaviors. This research and that on the needs of children for a father and a mother have been reviewed in several important recent papers from the University of South Carolina School of Medicine and the University of Utah School of Medicine.

The peer-reviewed literature demonstrates that an inability to maintain committed relationships and rampant promiscuity are the norm in the homosexual lifestyle. To illustrate this, one recent study in Amsterdam, by Xiridou, demonstrated that 86% of the new cases of AIDS came from those in committed relationships, and that those in casual relationships averaged between 16-28 sexual partners per year."

When asked, "What else does the research show in regards to psychiatric and medical health risks for those living the homosexual lifestyle?"  Dr. Fitzgibbons responded: "Well-designed research studies have shown that many psychiatric disorders are far more prevalent, three to five times, in teen-agers and adults with same-sex attraction [SSA]. These include major depression, suicidal ideation and attempts, anxiety disorders, substance abuse, conduct disorder, low self-esteem in males and sexual promiscuity with an inability to maintain committed relationships...It is important to note that "homophobia" is not the cause of these disorders, as many of these studies were done in cultures in which homosexuality is widely accepted."

Cardinal Martini, at such an advanced age, has chosen to dissent from the teaching of the Lord Jesus and to engage in lying.

Pray for him.

Archbishop Vincent Nichols: Respect for the Holy Eucharist and Church Teaching?

The Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, in its document entitled Immensae Caritatis: On Facilitating Reception Of Communion In Certain Circumstances, provided for the use of Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist under rather strict guidelines and said that "The faithful who are special ministers of communion must be persons whose good qualities of Christian life, faith, and morals recommend them. Let them strive to be worthy of this great office, foster their own devotion to the eucharist, and show an example to the rest of the faithful by their own devotion and reverence toward the most august sacrament of the altar. No one is to be chosen whose appointment the faithful might find disquieting." (No. 6).

Apparently Archbishop Vincent Nichols could care less about this teaching.  For one of his Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist is Mr. Terence Weldon, a radical homosexual activist and propagandist who has engaged in blasphemy against the Lord Jesus and who routinely dissents from the Church's teaching on homosexuality while holding the Bishops of the Church up to ridicule.  As I noted in my last post, Mr. Weldon's hatred for the Holy Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, is so intense that, referring to the CDF document entitled "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons," which says that the homosexual inclination is intrinsically disordered, he writes, "I just don’t buy that. The claim may be in the notorious CDF document, but anybody who is prepared to swallow every disordered statement on human sexuality from the Vatican, just because it has been written by sexually repressed, celibate theologians with no real-life experience of the subject they are able to admit to, is not living on the same planet as the rest of us. (See here).

An individual who has such disdain for the Lord Jesus, His Church, and the Bishops who serve in His name and with His authority cannot honestly be said to possess those "good qualities of Christian life, faith and morals" which the Church demands in its Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.

Additionally, Archbishop Nichols continues to tolerate the scandal of the so-called "Soho Masses," a bizarre experiment in liturgical terrorism where Christ is mocked in the Eucharist and Church teaching is relegated to the waste bin.  So much for the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that the Eucharist is properly the sacrament of those who are in full communion with the Church (1395). 

In a Keynote Address entitled Good Shepherd: Living Christ's Own Pastoral Authority, which was delivered at the 10th Annual Symposium on the Spirituality and Identity of the Diocesan Priest on March 18, 2011, Bishop Samuel J. Aquila had some important things to say about the role of Bishops. His Excellency noted that:


"Perhaps most difficult for us who lead in the Church today, due to the influence of the secular world with its rejection of God and the authority of God, along with a real skepticism of authority, is the exercise of the office of governance. Benedict XVI reminds us as bishops and priests again to turn to Jesus Christ to learn how to exercise this authority. No one is really able to feed Christ's flock, unless he lives in profound and true obedience to Christ and the Church, and the docility of the people towards their priests depends on the docility of the priests towards Christ; for this reason the personal and constant encounter with the Lord, profound knowledge of him and the conformation of the individual will to Christ's will is always at the root of the pastoral ministry. (General Audience, May 26, 2010).

Jesus at times was direct in calling people to conversion – to change their way of acting and thinking. This directness makes many of us uncomfortable today. We should follow his example and language, even if we do not use his precise words. His language is good to contemplate and definitely should challenge us to look at how we correct the faithful, including priests and bishops, and speak the truth especially with those who say they are with Christ and the Church but do not accept the teaching of Jesus and the Church.

One has only to read Matthew 23 to hear the forceful language Jesus uses when speaking with the Pharisees and Scribes. He refers to them as ―hypocrites, blind guides, and white washed tombs and towards the end asks them the question, ―You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? In our politically correct world this type of language would never be tolerated today, and yet the Gospel writers were not hesitant to pass on these exhortations of Jesus.

Furthermore, when Peter began to remonstrate with Jesus about going up to Jerusalem, he did not softly tell Peter, ―You do not understand. Rather Jesus spoke the vigorous words, ―Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men (Mt 16:23). Jesus speaks these words with force to the apostle he has chosen and the one whom he made first among the apostles. In love Jesus makes these direct statements to open the eyes of those whose hearts and minds are hardened. His straight talk, given in love for the person, desires the conversion and holiness of the person to the ways of God.

Jesus provides the Church and her leaders with the criteria for correcting a brother or sister. ―If your brother sins against you; go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector (Mt 18:16-17).

The steps in this passage are clear and Jesus is teaching us, but do we listen and follow his example? If this criteria had been followed with dissenting theologians, priests, religious and faithful in 1968 with the encyclical, Humanae Vitae, would we still be dealing with the problem today of those who dissent on contraception, abortion, same sex unions, euthanasia and so many other teachings of the Church?

One must honestly ask, how many times and years may a Catholic politician vote for the so called ―right to abortion, ―murder in the words of John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae (58), and still be able to receive Holy Communion? The continual reception of Holy Communion by those who so visibly contradict and promote a grave evil, even more than simply dissent, only creates grave scandal, undermines the teaching and governing authority of the Church and can be interpreted by the faithful as indifference to the teaching of Christ and the Church on the part of those who have the responsibility to govern. If we honestly pray with the Gospel we can see that hesitancy and non-accountability are not the way of Jesus Christ, but rather are a failure in the exercise of governance.

Bishops and priests, as an act of loving obedience to Christ, must return to a full exercise of the governing authority of Christ witnessed in the Gospel. If we do not exercise that authority, are hesitant to exercise it, or doubt it, then it only leads to the ―father of lies taking hold of the minds and hearts of the faithful, and their continuing to act in the ways of man and not the ways of God.

Pope Benedict XVI, in his conversation with Peter Seewald in the book Light of the World, made the following observation concerning the sexual abuse crisis among clergy, after speaking with the Archbishop of Dublin. In their conversation they spoke to a mentality prevalent after Vatican II. ―The prevailing mentality was that the Church must not be a Church of laws but, rather, a Church of love; she must not punish. Thus the awareness that punishment can be an act of love ceased to exist. This led to an odd darkening of the mind, even in very good people. Today we have to learn all over again that love for the sinner and love for the person who has been harmed are correctly balanced if I punish the sinner in the form that is possible and appropriate. In this respect there was in the past a change of mentality, in which the law and need for punishment were obscured. Ultimately this also narrowed the concept of love, which in fact is not just being nice or courteous, but is found in the truth (emphasis added). And another component of truth is that I must punish the one who has sinned against real love (Pages 25-26)." (Full Address here).

Is Archbishop Nichols being a good and caring shepherd of souls?  Or are his actions [and lack of] merely ensuring that the Father of Lies [John 8: 44] will take hold of the minds and hearts of the faithful who have been entrusted to his care?

As I ponder this, I cannot help but think of the words which came forth from St. John Chrysostom, Doctor of the Church, "The road to Hell is paved with the skulls of many bishops."  Strong words from a great saint who was known for his pacific spirit and outstanding charity.

Dear Lord, mercy.

Meditation: Luke 12: 48.

St. Cecilia's "Rainbow Ministry": Faithful to Church teaching or rejecting the teaching of the Magisterium?

We all know that the "Gay Pride" Mass is back on at St. Cecilia's Parish in Boston, re-scheduled for July 10th thanks to the Boston Archdiocese and its distorted notion of evangelization.  Now we have Joe Sacerdo reporting that, "..we have the vice chairman of the parish council encouraging youth confused about their sexuality to “come out “as gay or lesbian. No mention of turning to Jesus Christ, no mention of abstinence and chastity as the route to holiness consistent with God’s plan, no prayer advised, no spiritual counseling advised, no psychological or family counseling advised, no medical risks of unsafe sexual behavior to be concerned about. Just “come out” as gay or lesbian and you’ll get “new energy and life”! How is this leading people with same-sex attractions to a deeper relationship with Christ and a life of virtue and holiness?" (See here).


Now this is disturbing on every level.  The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document Persona Humana - Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics, denounced the moral subjectivism which many theologians were defending based on a misguided pastoral approach, one which the "Rainbow Ministry" at St. Cecilia's appears to have embraced. 

Persona Humana reminds Catholics that morals are not dependent upon human whims or changing cultures but rather on the natural law.  The document teaches clearly and concisely that every sexual act outside of marriage is sinful thereby condemning pre-marital sex, cohabitation, masturbation and homosexuality (Persona Humana, 7, 9).  The document condemns the flawed conclusion that a stable homosexual relationship may be analogous to marriage or justified:

"No pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people.  For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality." (Persona Humana, 8).  See full text of Persona Humana here.

Is this teaching accepted by St. Cecilia's "Rainbow Ministry"?  If so, as J. Sacerdo notes, why is it that there is "no mention of turning to Jesus Christ, no mention of abstinence and chastity as the route to holiness consistent ith God's plan"? Could it be that those who run the Rainbow Ministry at St. Cecilia's parish, the same people who want to give us a "Gay Pride" Mass, could care less about what the Church teaches?

John Kelly, the chair of the "Rainbow Ministry," told one Boston Globe Magazine reporter back in 1998 that "His faith has nothing to do with what the Vatican says, but only with what he experiences every Sunday at the Jesuit Urban Center."  More than 30 years ago, Mr. Kelly "turned his back on his Church" according to the Globe article.  Why?  Because, during confession, he told his parish priest that is a homosexual and the priest responded, "May almighty God have mercy on your soul."  Kelly says that he walked out of the confessional feeling "defeated and abused."

You see, because this good and faithful priest was not accepting of the homosexual "lifestyle," because he believed - as the Church teaches - that no pastoral method can justify homosexual acts, and because he had the audacity to pray that God would have mercy on John Kelly's soul, Mr. Kelly stormed out, turning his back on the Church founded by the Lord Jesus. (Full Boston Globe Magazine article here).
Later he would tell the Boston Globe reporter that he felt "abused" by the faithful priest who had the gall to challenge his sin.  A Catholic priest who would have undersood these words from Archbishop Oscar Romero, the martyred Archbishop of San Salvador, given shortly before he was gunned down: "A preaching that does not point out sin is not the preaching of the gospel. A preaching that makes sinners feel good so that they become entrenched in their sinful state, betrays the gospel's call. A preaching that does not discomfit sinners but lulls them in their sin leaves Zebulun and Naphtali in the shadow of death. A preaching that awakens, a preaching that enlightens -- as when a light turned on awakens and of course annoys a sleeper -- that is the preaching of Christ, calling, "wake up! Be converted!" this is the church's authentic preaching. Naturally, such preaching must meet conflict, must spoil what is miscalled prestige, must disturb, must be persecuted. It cannot get along with the powers of darkness and sin."


Indeed.  Which is why those of us Catholic bloggers who remain faithful to the Church's Magisterium and who oppose the false "gospel" of "Gay Pride" are accused of being "haters," and "bigots."  Meanwhile, it would appear that St. Cecilia's "Rainbow Ministry," and the Archdiocese of Boston in general, is content with leaving sinners entrenched in their sinful state.

Those who dissent from Church teaching place themselves in peril

It is intrinsic to the Catholic religion, that before one can become a member, he must satisfy himself that the answers to all questions of faith or morals are contained in a Deposit of Faith which has been revealed by God and entrusted to a Custodian established by God Himself and endowed with infallible protection against any change or error.  There are many who consider themselves to be "Catholic" even as they reject the Church's teaching while striving to erect a church in their own image and likeness.  One such deluded soul left a comment at this Blog accusing Catholic bloggers who are faithful to the Church's Magisterium of representing "a Puritan sect" anxious to "excommunicate" other Catholics. 

This sophomoric soul should reflect very carefully on the words of Pope Paul VI, in a discourse given to a general audience on September 1, 1971: "...He who thinks he can remain a Christian by his own efforts, deserting the institutional bonds of the visible and hierarchical Church, or who imagines he can remain faithful to the mind of Christ by fashioning for himself a Church conceived according to his own ideas, is on the wrong track, and deceives himself.  He compromises and perhaps ruptures, and makes others rupture, real communion with the People of God, losing the pledge of its promises."

The Church is a communion of persons with the Living God, brought about by the Lord Jesus in the Holy Spirit. And, as Pope John Paul II teaches in Christifideles Laici, No. 64, "..an awareness of a commonly shared Christian dignity, an ecclesial consciousness brings a sense of belonging to the mystery of the Church as Communion. This is a basic and undeniable aspect of the life and mission of the Church. For one and all, the earnest prayer of Jesus at the Last Supper, 'That all may be one' (Jn 17: 21), ought to become daily a required and undeniable program of life and action."

When we understand what is meant by the Church's communion, the words of Pope Benedict XVI make perfect sense: "..In order to remain in unity with the crucified and risen Lord, the practical sign of juridical unity, 'remaining in the teaching of the apostles' is indispensable." (Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith: The Church as Communion, p. 69, Ignatius Press).  But the false prophets of the "new morality," which is neither new nor morality, continue to insist that we are now living in a new era in which men have "come of age."  These mental and moral midgets, anxious to baptize abortion, homosexuality, contraception and a host of other evils, argue that there is now before us a new way, an easy way of following God which permits all things in the name of "love."

As these sons and daughters of Hell raise their angry voices against the Church, demanding that she "update" her teaching so that it will be more palatable for "modern man," the Church reminds us all in her authoritative voice that, "They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a 'bodily' manner and not 'in his heart.' All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged." (Lumen Gentium, No. 14).

Those who reject the Church's teaching remain in the Church but only in a bodily manner and not in their hearts.  They have ruptured real communion with the People of God and place themselves in danger of losing "the pledge of its promises."  This is not a "puritanical" teaching.  This is the teaching of Holy Mother Church.  This teaching represents the mind of Christ.  And those who are authentically Catholic will embrace it as such.

Archdiocese of Boston: Will the new policy be in accordance with Canon Law?

While announcing the new policy of the Boston Archdiocese which prohibits "discrimination" against students who come from a homosexual household, Cardinal Sean O'Malley said that, "Catholic schools exist for the good of the children and our admission standards must reflect that...I believe all would agree that the good of the child must always be our primary concern."  See here.

But what exactly does Cardinal O'Malley mean when he refers to "the good of the child"?  Is his idea of "the good" in accordance with Church teaching and Canon Law?  Canon 795 of the Code of Canon Law states quite clearly that, "Since a true education must strive for the integral formation of the human person, a formation which looks toward the person's final end, and at the same time toward the common good of societies, children and young people are to be so reared that they can develop harmoniously their physical, moral and intellectual talents, that they acquire a more perfect sense of responsibility and a correct use of freedom, and that they be educated for active participation in social life."

So "the good of the child," according to Holy Mother Church, must consist of a formation which looks toward a child's final end.  And that education is only true which strives for a child's integral formation and which contributes to the common good.  How then can the Church partner with homosexual parents?  As Father Vincent Miceli once noted, "It is said that 'the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.'  But if the person who rocks the cradle is warped and crippled in personality then the world will not be ruled but ruined." 

And speaking of Catholic schools partnering with parents, Canon 796 says that, "It is incumbent upon parents to cooperate closely with the school teachers to whom they entrust their children to be educated."  But how can such "cooperation" be said to exist if parents are engaging in homosexual relations while their children are being taught by their school teachers that homosexual activity is gravely sinful?

Or will the Archdiocese of Boston simply relegate Church teaching and Canon Law to the trash bin as happened here.

The good of the child Your Eminence?  Please do us a favor and stop insulting our intelligence.  Your new policy has nothing to do with "the good of the child."  It is simply capitulation to the Culture of Death.

I am praying for you Cardinal O'Malley.

Is the Archdiocese of Boston ignoring Church teaching?

That's the question Joe Sacerdo is asking here. It is utterly amazing how many who pride themselves on being "Vatican II Catholics" simply ignore those passages of the Conciliar documents which they find "irrelevant." In its Declaration on Christian Education (Gravissimum Educationis), No. 3, the Vatican II Fathers explained that parents "must be recognized as the primary and principal educators" of their children and that, "This role in education is so important that only with difficulty can it be supplied where it is lacking. Parents are the ones who must create a family atmosphere animated by love and respect for God and man, in which the well-rounded personal and social education of children is fostered."

But parents who are living in a same-sex relationship cannot create that "family atmosphere animated by love and respect for God and man" in which "the well-rounded personal and social education of children is fostered." The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, has said that adoption of children by homosexuals "would actually mean doing violence to these children," and that their situation of dependence would place them "in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development." (No. 7).

Can Catholic schools partner with homosexual or lesbian parents? In a word, no. Archbishop Charles Chaput has already addressed this fact in a statement issued earlier this year. The Catholic school must strive to ensure that the environment in which a child lives as he or she is being formed as a human being corresponds to the end of Catholic education. And what is that end? Vatican II teaches clearly that, "A Christian education...has as its principal purpose this goal: that the baptized, while they are gradually introduced to the knowledge of the mystery of salvation, become ever more aware of the gift of faith they have received, and that they learn in addition how to worship God the Father in spirit and truth (cf. Jn 4:23) especially in liturgical action, and be conformed in their personal lives according to the new man created in justice and holiness of truth (Eph 4:22-24); also that they develop into perfect manhood, to the mature measure of the fullness of Christ (cf. Eph 4:13).."

How important is it that a Catholic school strive to ensure that a child's environment corresponds to the end of a Catholic education? Pope Pius XI provides us with an answer, "In order to obtain perfect education, it is of the utmost importance to see that all those conditions which surround the child during the period of his formation, in other words that the combination of circumstances which we call environment, correspond exactly to the end proposed." (Encyclical Letter Divini Illius Magistri, No. 70).

Pope Pius XI continues, "The first natural and necessary element in this environment, as regards education, is the family, and this precisely because so ordained by the Creator Himself. Accordingly that education, as a rule, will be more effective and lasting which is received in a well-ordered and well-disciplined Christian family; and more efficacious in proportion to the clear and constant good example set, first by parents, and then by other members of the household." (No. 71). The full Encyclical may be found here.


Same-sex parents are not equipped to provide that "well-ordered and well-disciplined Christian family" necessary for the effective reception of Christian education. Not to mention the conditions required for the normal development of the child. See here.

Antoniano.

Related reading: Antoniano and Christian education of youth.

The duty of fostering vocations...

Vatican II's Decree on Priestly Training (Optatam Totius) says that, "The duty of fostering vocations pertains to the whole Christian community, which should exercise it above all by a fully Christian life...All priests especially are to manifest an apostolic zeal in fostering vocations and are to attract the interest of youths to the priesthood by their own life lived in a humble and industrious manner and in a happy spirit as well as by mutual priestly charity and fraternal sharing of labor. Bishops...are to encourage their flock to promote vocations and should be concerned with coordinating all forces in a united effort to this end. As fathers, moreover, they must assist without stint those whom they have judged to be called to the Lord's work." (No. 2).

Unfortunately, this duty is not taken seriously by many within the Church. In fact, many vocations have been sabotaged by dissident priests and religious anxious to exclude those who are deemed "too rigid" or too "pre-Vatican II." Recall Michael S. Rose's book "Goodbye, Good Men." Such was my experience with the La Salette Missionaries. Because of my orthodoxy, I was never even seriously considered as a candidate. In fact, when I expressed concerns over La Salette priests promoting the ordination of women to the ministerial priesthood during a vocation retreat, a La Salette Provincial accused me of "evil." I still have all my correspondence with several La Salette priests, one of whom actually had the grace and kindness to apologize to me for the way the La Salette community treated me.

Because I accept everything which is taught in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and because I defend the teaching authority of the Church's Magisterium, I am treated with nothing but contempt in my own diocese. I am not even permitted to participate in the life of my parish. And I am not alone. As Archbishop Elden Curtis explained in an article entitled "Crisis in Vocations? What Crisis?":


"There is much media hype these days about the present and projected shortage of priests and its effect on the sacramental life of the Church. It is time to pay close attention to the dioceses and religious communities reporting increasing numbers of candidates. There have to be reasons for these increases that bear objective analysis from which some conclusions can be drawn.
I personally think the vocation "crisis" in this country is more artificial and contrived than many people realize. When dioceses and religious communities are unambiguous about ordained priesthood and vowed religious life as the Church defines these calls; when there is strong support for vocations, and a minimum of dissent about the male celibate priesthood and religious life loyal to the magisterium; when bishop, priests, Religious and lay people are united in vocation ministry—then there are documented increases in the numbers of candidates who respond to the call.

It seems to me that the vocation "crisis" is precipitated and continued by people who want to change the Church's agenda, by people who do not support orthodox candidates loyal to the magisterial teaching of the Pope and bishops, and by people who actually discourage viable candidates from seeking priesthood and vowed religious life as the Church defines the ministries.

I am personally aware of certain vocation directors, vocation teams and evaluation boards who turn away candidates who do not support the possibility of ordaining women or who defend the Church's teaching about artificial birth control, or who exhibit a strong piety toward certain devotions, such as the Rosary.

When there is a determined effort to discourage orthodox candidates from priesthood and religious life, then the vocation shortage which results is caused not by a lack of vocations but by deliberate attitudes and policies that deter certain viable candidates.

And the same people who precipitate a decline in vocations by their negative actions call for the ordination of married men and women to replace the vocations they have discouraged. They have a death wish for ordained priesthood and vowed religious life as the Church defines them. They undermine the vocation ministry they are supposed to champion." (Full article here).

It is incredible to me that while Senator Edward Kennedy's life was celebrated during a very public funeral - even though he publically dissented from the Church's teaching regarding the sanctity of life - I am treated with nothing but contempt by those who would exclude me because of my fidelity to the Church's teaching. The Senator was referred to as "Our brother and friend." I cannot even participate in the life of my parish. I am held in so much contempt that when I contacted my Diocese to inquire about the priesthood, I received no response whatsoever.

Maybe if I promoted the killing of the unborn or women's ordination, I too would be welcomed as "brother and friend." That's not going to happen though. For what does it profit a man....you know the rest.

President Obama's Federal Budget: No funding for abstinence

"In Obama's FY 2010 Proposed Budget, the president calls for at least $164 million in funding for contraceptive-only education. The money includes competitive grants, research, evaluation and authorization for $50 million in new mandatory condom grants to states, tribes and territories." - From the LifeNews article.

President Obama's Federal Budget does not respect the primacy of parental responsibility in educating children, a primacy which is emphasized in the Church's teaching and law. Vatican II teaches us that, in raising children, the responsibility of parents is primary: "Since parents have given life to their children, they have a very grave duty to educate them, and so are to be recognized as their primary and principal educators" (GE, No. 3). And Pope John Paul II, explaining the conciliar teaching more fully in Familiaris consortio, No. 36, says that: "The right and duty of parents to give education is essential, since it is connected with the transmission of human life; it is original and primary with regard to the educational role of others, on account of the uniqueness of of the loving relationship between parents and children; and it is irreplaceable and inalienable, and therefore incapable of being entirely delegated to others or usurped by others." And, in No. 37 of this same document, Pope John Paul explained that education in sexuality which is offered in schools should not conflict with parental instruction: "Sex education, which is a basic right and duty of parents, must always be carried out under their attentive guidance, whether at home or in educational centres chosen and controlled by them. In this regard, the Church reaffirms the law of subsidiarity, which the school is bound to observe when it cooperates in sex education, by entering into the same spirit that animates the parents."

Canon Law is also very clear on this matter. Canon 793, 1., states that: "Parents as well as those who take their place are obliged and enjoy the right to educate their offspring; Catholic parents also have the duty and the right to select those means and institutions through which they can provide more suitably for the Catholic education of the children according to local circumstances." And Canon 1136 says that: "Parents have the most serious duty and the primary right to do all in their power to see to the physical, social, cultural, moral and religious upbringing of their children."

President Obama's Federal Budget represents an assault against parental rights and Church teaching.